28 October 2012 1:03 AM

Enter a church and you should hear echoes of eternity - not the Sugababes

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column:

I think the Church of England has just committed suicide. Its decision to allow grotesque, overblown weddings in its churches is an act so desperate and hopeless that I fear there is no return.Beneath the ancient arches of our parish churches we shall soon be enduring the music of the Sugababes and watching trained owls deliver matching rings to overdressed couples sitting on fake thrones, as photographers lean in as close as they can, to film the crucial moment.With the support of the strangely overrated John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, parsons are to be instructed to swallow their doubts and permit any kind of rubbishy vulgarity. The excuse is that, in some way, this treatment will persuade the men and women involved to forsake the cocktail bar and the tanning parlour, and become regular churchgoers.Everyone but a bishop can see quite clearly that it will do no such thing. The victims of these nasty, extravagant ceremonies will never enter a church again.Just as Groucho Marx wouldn’t belong to a club that would have him as a member, people will have no respect for a church that is obviously so desperate to welcome them that it will take money in return for ditching its principles.The whole point of churches is to disturb our day-to-day lives with the haunting rhythms and poetry of eternity. If we go into them and find that they are just like the nearest shopping mall, only with nicer architecture, then we will turn away disappointed.I don’t know if anything could have saved Christianity in England from becoming a despised minority religion. But I am quite sure that these pathetic attempts to appease the spirit of the modern age have made things much, much worse.Even 50 years ago, the Christian religion still had the attention and loyalty of many serious people. Now, even those of us who still stick to it find it hard to defend our supposed leaders.I suppose it will continue to survive in a few odd corners, its ceremonies performed for foreign tourists in the more picturesque cathedrals.But for the rest, many centuries of faith, hope and charity are ending not with a bang, or even a whimper, but with ‘Here Come The Girls’.

Spiritual symbol... or centre of a new world power?

How little we know about the Islamic world, even though a large and growing number of British subjects are Muslims. I am strangely haunted by recent pictures of Mecca.They show a monstrous clock tower dominating all around, surmounted by a huge crescent. To me, it looks more like the burgeoning capital of a new global power than the austere spiritual goal of millions of devout pilgrims.What a pity that I cannot go there to see for myself. I’ve found my way into North Korea, into Soviet nuclear facilities and the remotest corners of China. I’ve even slipped into Iranian Shia shrines, and been much impressed with the devotion of the worshippers.Yet for reasons I’ve never fully understood, Islam’s holiest place is closed to Christians. How are we going to understand each other properly if such barriers continue to stand?

Our pointless cult of human sacrifice

Have you noticed how keen we are getting on human sacrifice? I don’t (quite yet) mean the actual slaughter of people to soothe the rage of angry pre-Christian gods.But I do mean the furious denunciations of individuals, whether it be Andrew Mitchell or Jimmy Savile, usually done to quell the wrath of the mob. In many cases, the mob is furious because it hates in other people the things it dislikes in itself. How many of Mr Mitchell’s attackers have never sworn when they shouldn’t have, and have never lost their tempers?How many of Savile’s noisiest critics are secret viewers of pornography? It’s not that I want to defend Mr Mitchell for being rude, let alone defend the Savile creature for his gross appetites. It’s just that I don’t think frenzies do any good.When all this is over, the Government will be the same (as it always is after some Minister or other has been driven from office). And the BBC will be the same too, still judge and jury in its own cause and scornful of conservative opinions and morals held by millions of its licence-payers.For a lot of people, the last Election was, at heart, a chance to pillory and destroy Gordon Brown (or the person they imagined him to be). My belief is that they were mainly furious with themselves for having been so completely fooled by Mr Brown’s smooth sidekick, Anthony Blair. But as they ejected the scowling Labour leader from Downing Street, they replaced him with a man whose politics are pretty much exactly the same. Another human sacrifice.A grown-up country is interested in policies, not in punishing individuals. But we are not grown-ups any more, just children rushing this way and that as the TV tells us.

Had they lived to be really old, would Stalin and Hitler have ended up as pottering old geezers in straw hats, peering out at us from behind grizzled beards? And would we have softened towards them as a result? Well, I cannot soften to the old killer and torturer Fidel Castro, despite recent pictures of him doddering around Havana, looking as if he has escaped from a pensioners’ outing. I still see blood, and hear screams.

This government, like the last, is very good at figures. Crime figures are down. Unemployment figures are down. Inflation figures are down. Funny, isn’t it, that in our actual, real lives, crime and disorder get worse, prices rocket upwards and factories are closing. How can that be?

When I read in August that the talented Hollywood film director Tony Scott had killed himself without any apparent good reason, I was fairly sure that pretty soon we would find that the poor man had been taking ‘antidepressants’.Well, a preliminary autopsy has found ‘therapeutic’ levels of an ‘antidepressant’ in his system. I take no pleasure in being right, but as the scale of this scandal has become clear to me, I have learned to look out for the words ‘antidepressant’ or ‘being treated for depression’ in almost any case of suicide and violent, bizarre behaviour. And I generally find it. The science behind these pills is extremely dubious. Their risks are only just beginning to emerge. It is time for an inquiry.

It is now 25 days since I asked Edward Miliband’s office if he had received private tuition while at his comprehensive school. Why am I still waiting for an answer?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Mr Doyle, are you telling me that we are one human race and one single species?"

A.G.Rawlings.

Yes I am! The differences you point to are *not* as a result of novel genes/proteins unique to any race, evolved only in that group (race). They are a result of genetic *loss* and protein malfunction from within the original common gene pool. This is a very important difference to your premise (02 November 2012 at 08:50) that evolutionary mutations accumulate novel genes/proteins that the other groups never had.
Sickle-cell is disease, resulting from loss of genetic material that was previously there, not gain, a step backwards if you like, no new proteins are involved, and, in fact, sickle-cell is a good example of how the so-called creationary force of genetic mutations; actually serve to weaken the organism.
All groups started with the same pool, and could readily revert back to their original state given time. Now pay attention here A.G., there is no breaking out of the pool to sprout new novel pools and species, variations occur because of activity *within* the common pool.
A Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier (I couldn't spell chewowow) have genetic differences only because the genes (from the same pool) that define their respective body plans, are dominant rather than recessive. Given time, both breeds would revert back to the genome they both came from (common dog) Any genetic information lost or recessive (in order to make the dog small or big), would be quickly regained by breeding with other common dog without the lost or recessive genes. That's why blind cave fish who have supposedly evolved away their eyes over thousands of generations, can (if two fish from different isolated caves mate) have first generation progeny with fully formed eyes.
Question for you: Are you telling me that a Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier are two different species?

Mr Doyle, are you telling me that we are one human race and one single species? Let me give you a reading of Arnold Gesell, 1: racial differences are determined in part by differences in racial pools of genes and in part differences in environment. The genes react with the substance of the body and the body reacts with environment in accordance with nature of the genes. Many genes in Negroes and Whites are common to both races of men. Many of the genes common to both races are unequally distributed in the two races. Many other genes and the traits that result from them are characteristic of one or the other. The genetic behaviour of some of these exclusive, or virtually exclusive, genes for one race, like the sickle-cell trait in the Negro has been demonstrated. Mr Doyle are you trying to imply that all non- Liberal and communist professors are crackpots that have no idea about us being a single human race with no differences in structure and another things that I’m not allowed to mention. If you are not prepared to read other specialist and professors views that do not agree with yours; sadly that is brainwashing that our nation is ruled with. I trust you must be above those people I have ask you to read on genetics and race, on the ground that you know best even though you are not a professor on these subjects.
Mr Vallance, I’m not a professor or highly educated; but do believe as races we differ from the day they was born and indeed before they were born. African bones are more dense than European bones; while other structures differ, hence the reason for being different species. African children advance quicker than European children up to the age of about 3; while the European children there after outstrip the African children. Perhaps you can read the professors and doctors that I ask Mr Doyle to read; sadly fiction is what he wants to adhere too?

You finish by saying ‘coming to know the Spirit.’
I am not sure that there is a Spirit to come to know.
In my teens, I told people, and told myself, that I had a relationship with this friend whom I could neither see nor hear, called ‘Jesus’
Then it dawned on me that I had nothing of the kind, and was just saying what I thought I ought to say.
I suspect that the same went for my friends who also claimed to have a friend in Jesus.
About that time, I went to a Pentecostal Chapel, where people were supposed to be full of the Spirit. But all I saw were a lot of people pogoing. like punk rockers (remember them?). Spirit? No, it was just excitement.
By I way, I still see no reason to think that Cinderella was ever more than a downtrodden dogsbody who got off with the boss’s son and that Hansel & Gretel were ever more than two children who had a narrow escape.

John of Dorset,
Thank you for your post of 2 nd. Nov. at 11:23pm
The Christian position on sex is very simple.
Sex is not evil, but a Christian who does not have sex is better than one who does.
A good Christian would renounce marriage, and presumably sex, for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 19 10-12.

Peter Preston,
Thank you for your post of 1st. Nov. at 4:55pm.
You are bent on hanging me on something, aren’t you?
First you say ‘But Curtis, you are not applying the principle of innocent till proven guilty’.
When I point out that as Jimmy Saville will not be facing criminal charges ‘innocent till proven guilty’ does not apply,. you shift your ground. You say ‘ what Jimmy Saville did to these children does not directly affect you. Curtis, mind your own business and hold your peace’..
It would be a strange world if people only ever took notice of and interest in what affects them directly.
There would be
1. Little philanthropy. For example, the Good Samaritan would have passed by on the other side, because what had happened the Judean did not directly affect the Samaritan.
2. Little reform. For example, William Wilberfoce and Thomas Clarkson would have minded their own business and held their peace. As they were not Africans, the slave trade did affect them
3. Little science. How does it affect anyone what a neutrino or a black hole might be?
Peter, is that the world you want?

Ian Vallance
Your'e clearly a man who struggles to hide his contempt of those with a different opinion. Something you will have to learn to live with unfortunately.
Does one have to be a scientist to hold an opinion different to yours?
As I have stated and you agree the alleged change in human colour is not observable due to the slow nature of evolution, I argue that if there is no observation and proof of change of colour ( and lets not forget facial features etc ) then it is theory.
Some of the oldest human remains almost as old as African remains are in fact European and as such clearly show that different types of human existed millions oy years ago. The out of Africa theory and in fact according to the BBC a certain known village in Africa raises more questions than it answers. It isn't just skin colour facial features and biological features. Why is it the first world is so advanced? Surely Africa being the earlist and cradle of humanity should be leaps ahead of us, not forgetting of course Africa is one of the most fertile and mineral rich regions on this earth.
You mention that our ancestors were likely to have been dark skinned. 'likely' not fact then!
Very early remains dotted around the four corners of this planet show a high level of red haired European people . Red haired people tend to be very pale. Thus I fail to see where the ' we were once dark skinned bit comes from.
As for your ape theory, i don't hold that we evolved from apes thus your point has no merit with me.
Personally I believe that we have always had different species or types of human on this planet, living alongside one another. One race didn't evolve out of another.
A very good book incidently on the scientific community seeing as you mention it, which shows the self interested egos of some scientists and the politicing that goes on is Forbidden Science edited by J Douglas Kenyon.
It would help to have an open mind to read it, so it may be beyond you.

It was your claim that the different races have different gene pools that I challenged, because having different gene pools, would make them different species, and I doubt very much if any of the scientists you name are claiming that their is more than one species of human.
All races of human come from the same gene pool, and the differences you ascribe to evolutionary mutations, are sub-specific variations, facilitated by the ingenious ability built into the genes (google natural genetic engineering) of all species, to cope with the various environmental pressures they are faced with. They are not copying error driven, quite the opposite, they are deliberate reactionary processes carried out from within the protein synthesis systems within the cell. Copying error evolution theory is so yesterday, and I suggest you make an effort to catch old boy/girl?
Thanks, but no thanks on your suggested reading, I have my own sources, and having read what you believe to be true; it seems mine are more effective.
Anyway, many so-called world leading scientists have got it badly wrong over and over again. Check out the recent Junk DNA revelations, from unimpeachable canon (swallowed hook line and sinker by the likes of yourself); to Junk science, consigned to the dustbin of history.

Brian Meredith
I didn't take your comments personally. I'm sorry you thought I did.
I suspect the costs of marriage are far bigger reason why people don't get married than the liberal idea of it being old hat.
As you say ten thousand or so is a huge amount for a young couple to find, especially with the added expense of trying to get on the housing market.
A case of house or wedding, there is no choice really.

Racial differences can and could be viewed as the early stages of speciation but that the development has not lead to any difficulties with interbreeding suggests that the journey has not progressed very far.
Speciation appears to happen largely for two reasons specialisation and geographic separation and both can happen at the same time I guess. Our modern world indeed the human world since the dawn of civilisaition it could argued certainly hinders and in many cases prevents either one or both of these processes from occurring.
It is certainly not the case that different genetic traits have not been collected in the different races, The questions are how different are the genetic forms that determine these traits and what is the significance of them in terms of speciation, As I see it simply hasnt happened yet and given our modern world further progress toward full speciation on the basis of extending current racial traits is almost certainly being hindered at least. Without getting into any argument about whether we should, could artificially different human species be created? The experience of domestic dogs would surely suggest not very quickly and the current controversy about our having Neanderthals genes from what I guess could be thought of as a different species, even if we did human behaviour may well frustrate our efforts to maintain the differences?

PS Elaine, you keep asking us to move on as though you have the authority of one of NYPD's finest, but I am not going to move on until I get individual apologies.

Posted by: Sebastian Kinsman | 03 November 2012 at 08:11 AM

I missed this. First of all, I was addressing the Mighty King when I said (once) "time to move on", not you.

But, other than saying I was may have been too harsh, I have nothing to apologize to you for. YOU started bragging about the wonders of pornography, which would have probably gone unnoticed or without response if it hadn't been for mentioning your daughter. This was a debate that you started. Others responded. You didn't like their response, but oh, well, that's the way it goes. Nobody owes you an apology.

You have set out an argument that I am unable to counter so I will say something, anything, however idiotic, as that might look better than saying nothing."
Posted by: Sebastian Kinsman

I had started to feel sorry for you. Even though I haven't said anything different then everyone else who has responded to your comments, I was probably harsher in the way I said it. But I can't feel sorry for you now. If you think I haven't countered *everything* you have said then you are delusional.

Firstly you wildly over interprete my views on the role of Christianity in world history my views are not that it has largely been a force for evil, but more that history shows that it cannot claim to have been largely a force for good, a position its advocates frequently claim as an uncontestable statement and on this basis assume some kind of moral authority.
Christianity (in all its forms) is for me essentially no different than any other human belief system that is it is riven by division and often overly dogmatically promulgated by folk dedicated to the spreading of their world view at the expense of all others and who are more than willing to do real damage to those who dont share it and or wont accept it. In short it is just another human activity nothing more and nothing less. Sure its basic tennents rarely suggest the requirement for the activities that its proponents all to frequently undertake but I could say the same of almost any other ism you could name. And any claims to be acting in the name of the divine to frequently are used as a front for the most henious activities. I would further argue that a tendency to intolerance is actually built into almost all religions given the frequently mutually exclusive claims they make to be representing the divine. But even saying this like all other human activities the outcomes of actions claimed to be inspired by Christian beliefs are a bit of a curate's egg.

"A self-confessed viewer of porn advocating porn is almost certainly stupid and wrong, but he is not hypocritical. (i.e. Yours truly.)"

Such a person would, I suggest, be foolish and might - for all any other person knew - even in needlessly professing such a habit be hypocritical, for the word "hypocrite" is a transcription of the Greek υποκριτής (an actor) and, while not, of course, wishing to impute such motives to you, sir, anyone who without being asked to do so spontaneously and publicly declares himself an habitué of a form of entertainment widely and traditionally considered deplorable leaves himself open at least to a suspicion of seeking to dramatize.
Not that it need matter much to anyone except the habitué himself and regrettably also those with whom he lived or otherwise came into contact.

Of course, if in addition to viewing lewd material such a person, as you seem to say, also "advocated" it, and if - as I maintain - such lewd material can unbalance the minds and perceptions of certain people, would he not - even perhaps unkowingly - thereby be recommending material capable of putting evil - and perhaps sometimes even criminal - ideas into temporarily unbalanced heads to others whose mental stability he might be in no position to assess?
In other words, would not such a person be dangerously naif?

Can I add that you commit the same fallacy as the Guardianistas in the popular misuse of the charge of hypocrisy.

Samuel Johnson:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.

So:

A. A self-confessed viewer of porn advocating porn is almost certainly stupid and wrong, but he is not hypocritical. (i.e. Yours truly.)

B. A viewer of porn who advocates continence is not committing an act of hypocrisy as long as he makes no pretense of constant continence. (I believe Maurice placed himself in this category, as popular culture makes us all inadvertent viewers of porn more or less.)

C. A viewer of porn who advocated continence and pretends to constant continence is the only hypocrite in this story.

I will leave it to you to decide who is the real hypocrite in this story out of yours truly, ex-Mighty King Bambooswae, Maurice, John of Dorset, Peter and Elaine.

PS Elaine, you keep asking us to move on as though you have the authority of one of NYPD's finest, but I am not going to move on until I get individual apologies.

I don't know about the others you are responding to, but I don't type in the Mail website address. I simply search Peter Hitchens in google and follow the link to his blog. I don't read the Daily Mail or Sunday Mail, or their websites, and have only a cursory knowledge of what they are like. I only read Mr. Hitchen's articles (and occasionally Thomas Fleming's).

I know the Mail undermines any socially conservative credentials it may have by its intense interest in the salacious and the celebrity, but, although I'm not the most knowledgeable on it, I wouldn't actually class it as a soft porn site.

Thucydides's makes no attempt at refutation of the points in question. It is not simply Christianity, but the traditional morality of most of human history that comes to similar conclusions. Christianity bases its reasoning about sexuality on human nature, on the essence and ends of. Thucydides pays no attention to any such arguments.

Of course, the poverty of Thucydides's position is manifest in that he has the usual liberal inability to differentiate between any restrictions on the ordering of the lower aspects of our passions. A Christian does not have to agree with Augustine in his most austere moments, when he appears to categorise all sex as sinful. Nor does a Christian have to view reproduction as the soul end of human sexuality. An end and aspect of human sexuality is clearly to form a bond between the sexes, sexuality is far more than reproduction. Indeed, though I can see that these views may sometimes serve a purpose, I would say they are limited and far from inexhaustible perspectives on human sexuality.

No, the Christian is committed to a view point that recognises that man is a hierarchy of faculties. He has his passions, his imagination, his reason, and his Spiritual nature. The Christian need not exclude any of these aspects of man, but what he must do is simply recognise that in any activity (not necessarily at any particular moment, but in general), especially one so central as sexuality and romantic relationships, the individual should act in a way that helps him to maintain the balance of his differing faculties or aspects and develop his whole being. In terms of sexuality this means that the physical side is not a negative, the Christian need have no hang ups there, but he should (not every moment, but in general) make sure he approaches sex and relationship in with his whole being, in a harmonious way. That being done he may take ample pleasure in his sexuality, though he must also remember that legitimate sexuality is about a reciprocal bond of love and therefore each partner must be concerned about the pleasure of the other.

Now, what Thucydides offers is clearly just the usual sentimental position: the position that we should simply let our passions express themselves in a disordered and random way, as long as we don't directly harm others. There is no need for any personal restraint of passions or concerns with ordering our being or approaching life as a whole human being. Such a position is a far less profound, meaningful, and, indeed, positive perspective on human sexuality. It is the philosophy of a brute, whereas the Christian perspective can embrace a sexuality that reaches out to the whole person, stresses mutual and deep pleasure in the romantic and sexual bond, and can even see in sexual ecstasy and the loss of self in that bond as a type, an anagogic reach, for heaven and unity with the divine.

"In 2005, five men were sentenced for kidnapping and raping three North African women seeking asylum, and forcing them to make a porn film.1 American anti-trafficking centre Breaking Free states that approximately one in three of the prostitution victims they see have also been used in the production of pornography.2"

--From "The link between Pornography and Human Trafficking" (source: Modern Day Slavery blog)

Mighty King, with so much porn on the internet, there really is no way to know who the consenting adults are.

You write:
"It also assumes that I either don't realise that it exploits some women, or even worse that I know that it does, but believe exploitation to be morally acceptable. So it is patronising as well as being a straw man."

How good of you to recognize that recognize that the exploitation of women takes place in the porn industry. If you don't find it morally acceptable then what are you defending? Whether forced into it or exploited, it's still wrong.

Mr Doyle, with regards to your comments; I think you should study some of the professor’s views on racial differences. Here are some professor’s that do not agree with your views of we are all the same; even with our genes. 1: William Howell’s R. Ruggles Gates, JV Neel, James F Bonner, Curt Stern Herman Muller, C.D. Darlington, R. Gayle, Charles Darwin, E Garret and many more professors that do not lie about the differences in species. Another person you should read is Mr Philippe Rushton on intelligence views on different species. There is another professor you should read about differences in race is Professor Wesley C. George who will put your views of we are all the same as being false.

Ian Vallance - I was using the term "transcendental", not in a spiritual sense, but in the sense of a primary value that rises above or trumps all other values. Many liberals imply by their rhetoric that they view tolerance in this light, but their actions when they achieve power invariably refute this claim. I don't regard tolerance as a virtue per se; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The question always has to be: tolerance for what? A poultry farmer who prided himself on his benevolent tolerance for foxes would soon find himself without poultry. Social, political and religious questions are unfortunately often a zero sum game, rendering it impossible to tolerate all sides. Even something as ostensibly uncontentious as promoting economic growth entails choosing not to tolerate the desires of many people. The building of a new motorway, for example, usually means discriminating against cyclists and forcing many people to vacate their homes. Likewise tolerance of the "right" of young and not so young to hold raves may conflict with the right of adjoining neighbours to have a good night's sleep. As for Christianity, my belief is that most people take its core values far too much for granted and assume, very wrongly, that we all inevitably agree on such matters anyway. As the non-Christian V.S. Naipaul once noted, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you", is actually a very radical injunction. Christopher Hitchens argued that part of the evil of Christianity was that its injunctions were impossible to fulfil - Brian Sewell said something similar regarding the Church's teaching on sexual morals. By the way, apologies if my phrase "of your ilk" was a touch on the rude side - I simply meant people who believe, as you apparently do, that Christianity has largely been a force for evil.

"In the light of what we know about mutations and natural selection, it would be strange indeed if, during those areas, had not accumulated different pools of genes and varied racial characters;"

A G Rawlings.

Its the other way around isn't it? We've only been around for about twelve thousand generations. A blink of the eye in evolutionary terms. Take for example the insects trapped in amber millions of years ago, and how identical they are to their modern day counterparts, and this after hundreds of millions of generations exposed to the amazing creationary forces of evolution. In comparison, the paltry twelve thousand or so generations available for homo sapien to evolve new gene pools seems hardly enough to give us the curved ilium necessary to give our stride an air of dignity.
Bacteria in laboratory conditions, exposed to concentrated artificial evolutionary pressure, after countless millions of generations, have remained (barring man made mutants) exactly as they were with the same gene pool since the first day. The same with the fruit fly after 50 years of intense artificial evolutionary pressure in the laboratory, are still plain old Drosophila melanogaster, with the same gene pool it always had. The evidence tells us the opposite of your premise.
That's science isn't it?

So, to conclude: in the light of what we know about mutations, it would be strange indeed if *have* accumulated different gene pools (which we haven't anyway) in so short a space of time.
Just a point of order, not wanting a response, so no need to get your helmet on.
Have a nice day A G.

I personally tend to agree with your position on the meaning of tolerance and on your conclusions on the ueberliberal establishment but how does your entry relate to the points I made?

"they complained, not because they believed in tolerance as a primary transcendental virtue, but because they wanted their particular ideology to be tolerated in order that it might flourish and eventually crush all competing ideologies. " And if you know anything about Christian History this admirably describes how Christian orthodoxies got imposed across the various part of the disintegrating and post disintegration Roman Empire.
Are you suggesting that there is a form of Christianity that believes in " tolerance as a primary transcendental virtue"? If you do then we do profoundly disagree on this point. And anyway having looked up transcendental I am frankly at a wee bit of loss as to how tolerance could achieve this state particularly given your own definition.
Oh I'm intrigued as to what "ilk" you think I am by the way. I do hope its not a liberal as I would consider that libellous. Ilk is a great word always liked it from Scots / Old English apparently didnt know that till now.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.